Brief Proof of UFOs.

Interesting. You know I think I am going to bring my laptop to work and show this to the people I work with who gave me crap today for the book I had. It was "Alien Agenda" by Jim Marrs. Everyone said I was nuts and that this stuff was fake and not real. Well I believe and have seen enough myself to know it! I know you could flat out show someone an alien or ufo and they will still think its not real so I guess some people are just hopeless. Nice articles, thanks for the info!

I appreciate the kind words from everyone. As far as what we can do?

I'd recommend doing exactly what mblahnikluver is planning. Send the 'Brief Proof' to your friends and family, especially those who poo-poo the subject. Word of mouth is extremely powerful. The great thing about sending a person this small bit of text is they have no reason not to read it and if they want to substantively attack the subject they'll have to do honest-to-god, real research. Anyone who investigates these cases will be hard pressed to come up with any prosaic explanations.

This will in all likelihood change hearts and minds.

For those who refuse to explain why this doesn't qualify as proof of existence of UFOs - you'll finally have the upper hand. Every conclusion is backed up by a mountain of verifiable data. Show them how science in this case is against them. If someone does manage to find chinks, come back and report it so the argument can be better honed.

It's my hope by doing this people will have the courage to come forward and say, yes, based on the scientific data I no longer have to choose to believe in UFOs, I know something exists based on hard facts.

I could go in to more detail about my general thesis about how to solve the UFO problem, but to keep it simple I believe the best solution isn't to convince everyone all at once. The idea is to convince one person at a time.

[edit on 27-2-2009 by Xtraeme]

I received a channeled message today which was from SaLuSa of Sirius, and channeled by Mike Quinsey in the UK, which you may find of interest.

Here is a quote from it:



The full message can be read here:

www.treeofthegoldenlight.com...

I'm sure there will be people who won't believe this type of message, but until such time as our governments reveal the full extent of UFO's, and their dealings with extra-terrestrial life forms, such messages are a source of information for those with an open mind.

The ultimate proof of extra terrestrials will be to see them with my own eyes; to speak to them and find out how far we have been misled by those in power on Earth; but for now I'm reading posts like the OP here, and channeled messages from just a few sources who have been doing so for decades.

Really great post. The way I usually try to explain it to people who are still asleep and can't believe me is kind of a shorter version of what you've done--I say "Look, I can't take you aboard a UFO, I can't prove beyond a doubt that they exist. What I *can* prove is that there was a coverup of *something*. There's a paper trail. There are people who were involved who are willing to talk about it. There are documents available via FOIA that confirm investigations and imply a concerted effort to hush things up. So if there was nothing going on, what on earth (or rather not on earth) was the gov't bothering to try to conceal?"

Starred and flagged!

That's a great way to get people to start looking in to the subject, but sadly there's an argument against this. I call it the Walter B. Smith & Duke Gildenberg theory. The reason for the ruse, as Smith put it, was, "psychological warfare." I think Duke put it best, "Every [Skyhook] flight we flew generated UFO reports. In fact for awhile we were even using it as a backup tracking system. We would call up a town and ask, 'Did anyone see a UFO this afternoon? Yeah, one to the ... Okay, what direction, to the south? Okay keep an eye on it.' We allowed them to remain UFO reports, with the hope being once they got over the Soviet Union they'd still be registered as UFOs instead of as our reconnaissance balloons." (1)

What doesn't make sense is why the cover-up hasn't been lifted some 18 years after the end of the cold war. I suppose the argument could be made, we still have reconnaissance projects that illegally overfly friendly territory. Therefore we're still using UFOs as an explanation for our clandestine operations.

However if that were the case it also leads me to believe that the US would want to admit UFOs are real. Though, I could also see the advantage of leaving it ambiguous. Not confirming whether it's US or some non-terrestrial entity allows foreign dignitaries to speculate just how advanced the United States actually is.

The real reason we know as fact that this isn't the United States or some other world government, is because there would be reams of paperwork describing these kinds of false-flag operations that would have turned up in court enforced FOI discoveries and fact-finding inquiries demanded by congressional committees. We also wouldn't have people like Milton Torres coming forward saying they were told to shoot down UFOs. It also wouldn't make sense for the US to buzz their own planes. Likewise, why would the US conduct massive studies in to a phenomenon (Project Twinkle, Project Sign, Grudge, Bluebook, etc) which could be attributed to its own manufacture? It would be a waste of time, resources, and man-power and could possibly expose the cover-up. It doesn't make sense.

[edit on 27-2-2009 by Xtraeme]

THE NSA FOI case isa good example of this.

Yeates, Chief ot the Office of Policy in the NSA, would not even provide the files to the judge in a the NSA UFO files FOI case. Instead he gave an afidavit in camera to the judge to justyify why the files would not be release. Here is the redacted version which was eventually got through FOI.

www.fas.org...

What amazes me is that even so long after these files could be reasonably held on national security they still hold the highest level of security such that the courts can't even access them. MK Ultra has been declassified, nuclear secrets have been declassified, but not UFO's? It goes way beyond cointelpro.

reply to post by Xtraeme

---

Thank you very much for a great thread.

These are the kind of threads that make ATS so interesting.

Star and Flag of course and keep up the good work.

Just weather balloons and dummys people...nothing to see here.

Seriously, there is a tremendous amount of eye witness testimony and circumstantial evidence that makes the case for alien life.

I'm just afraid the reason why the nations of the world won't reveal the truth is because it will be like the entire population of the planet being thrown down the rabbit hole.

Imagine what life would be like if if the UN announced that, "yes aliens are real, and guess what? We're all descendents of alien colonists"

So much for the whole Adam and Eve thing.

I hate to say this, but I agree with Euguene Yeates reasoning. For example, imagine you have an encrypted message. You send it to a friend. I manage to intercept and break it. If I were to reveal the fact that I have the original message it would be obvious I compromised the cipher. In a similar vein if you only used a private network for transmitting secret data and I managed to siphon some of that material it's, again, obvious the system has been breached.

That's the bulk of the reasoning for not releasing 154 of the 156 comint reports. I used to work as a security consultant for Microsoft. This is the nature of the game. Obscurity and obfuscation are important tools to slow-down attackers and to prevent those you're working against from finding out the tools you're using to collect data.

Doesn't mean I wouldn't like to see these documents declassified, just means they have a good justification for keeping the paperwork under lock and key. Is it the real reason for classifying the documents? Probably, though there could very easily be additional motives for wanting to restrict access.

I've had an interest in the Battle of LA that you linked to in your first post. The page you found isn't the only one on the Rense website. There's another one with a better picture enhancment.

It's at...
www.rense.com...

reply to post by Xtraeme

---

Thanks for the post! This is the kind of precise summary that I need, that is needed to get to the truth. I'll be taking my time looking into these links and references for myself. I needed a good starting point and this is it. Thanks again!

Good God Man. You're The Real Deal!!!

Excellent report and sourcing! Brilliant use of easily explained critical thinking!
S&F for certain!

Welcome to my friends list. It's time for our planet to come face to face with the facts. If you need field work done anywhere in California, you've got my U2U.

-WFA

But then you can go one step further and use your mind to comprehend that these crafts have pilots, at least most of them, some are bots according to Ingo Swann's impression with one in his book penetration. Ergo this makes sense of enormous ruins and drawings and ancient history, native accounts and many thousands upon thousands of personal testimony. Where theres smoke theres fire, and connecting the dots is the only way to explain it, and not continually treat so many people like they're delusional idiots, when they're not. The proof of all of it is all around you. And yes, there are many testimonies right here on ATS. You'd be really surprised that I witnessed two decent and extremely interesting chemtrail threads shut down for a bit of off topic, though related and very tantalizing information with the insulting behavior minor. I mean, I had to wonder who kept pressing the alert buttons over nearly nothing! Compared to any experiencer's thread in the grey area. Where the personal attacks are non-stop hell.

The debunkers say there's no proof, but they won't even be convinced when they see proof.

I did a brief study on how people use belief structures to arrive at their UFO position. What I try to impart to debunkers, not skeptics mind you, is that their position is akin to those who believe in UFOs for no other reason than they choose to.

In these rare instances I'm prone to saying, "What you disbelieve on faith I know for fact."

[edit on 5-4-2009 by Xtraeme]

While the original post represents proof in my mind of some form of intelligent UO. It doesn't go in to detail discussing other highly rated cases. For other exceptional examples I recommend reading Isaac Koi's 'Expert's short list' and his fantastic compilation of the 'Top 100 UFO cases - Revealed!'


[edit on 10-4-2009 by Xtraeme]